Tackling community concerns about commercialisation and genetic research: A modest interdisciplinary proposal

Social Science and Medicine

Volumn 64, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 272-282

  Haddow, Gillian ^a   Laurie, Graeme ^a   Cunningham Burley, Sarah ^a   Hunter, Kathryn G ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Benefit sharing; DNA databases; Genetics; Pharmaceutical companies; Public consultation; Public ownership

Indexed keywords

DNA;

COMMERCIALIZATION; DATABASE; DNA; GENETICS; PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY; PROFITABILITY; RESEARCH WORK;

ARTICLE; COMMERCIAL PHENOMENA; COMMUNITY CARE; CONFIDENTIALITY; DATA BASE; DRUG INDUSTRY; ECONOMIC ASPECT; FUNDING; GENETIC DATABASE; HUMAN; INFORMED CONSENT; LEGAL ASPECT; MEDICAL GENETICS; MEDICAL INFORMATION; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PROFIT; PUBLIC OPINION; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; SOCIOLOGY; UNITED KINGDOM;

COMMERCE; DATABASES, GENETIC; DRUG INDUSTRY; FOCUS GROUPS; GENETIC RESEARCH; HUMANS; REFERRAL AND CONSULTATION; SCOTLAND;

EURASIA; EUROPE; SCOTLAND; UNITED KINGDOM; WESTERN EUROPE;

EID: 33845426499     PISSN: 02779536     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2006.08.028     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Barbour V. UK Biobank: A project in search of a protocol. The Lancet 361 May (2003) 1734-1738
2. In: Belk R. (Ed). Me and thee versus mine and thine: How perceptions of the body influence organ donation and transplantation. Organ donation and transplantation: Psychological and behavioural factors (1990), American Psychological Association, Washington
3. Berg K. The ethics of benefit sharing. Clinical Genetics 59 (2001) 240-243
4. Cragg Ross Dawson. (2000). Public perceptions of the collection of human biological samples. London: Wellcome Trust/MRC (pp. 1-134) www.wellcome.ac.uk
5. Haddow G. The phenomenology of death, embodiment and organ transplantation. Social Health & Illness 27 1 (2005) 92-113
6. Haddow G., Cunningham-Burley S., et al. Generation Scotland preliminary consultation exercise 2003-04: Public and stakeholder views from focus groups and interviews (2004), ESRC INNOGEN Centre, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh (pp. 1-27)
7. Hapgood, R., McCabe, C., et al. (2004). Public preferences for participation in a large DNA cohort study: A discrete choice experiment, ScHARR; Sheffield Health Economics Group. 〈http://www.shef.ac.uk/~sheg/discussion/04_5FT.pdf〉.
8. Hoeyer K. Ambiguous gifts: Public anxiety, informed consent and biobanks. In: Tutton R., and Corrigan O. (Eds). Genetic databases: Socio-ethical issues in the collection and use of DNA (2004), Routledge, London 97-116
9. HUGO Ethics Committee. (2000). Statement on benefit-Sharing. 〈http://www.gene.ucl.ac.uk/hugo/benefit.html〉, Accessed June 2004.
10. Human Genetics Commission. Public attitudes to human genetic information: People's panel quantitative study (2001), Department of Health, London
11. Jack A.L., and Womack C. Why surgical patients do not donate tissue for commercial research: Review of records. British Medical Journal 327 7409 (2003) 262
12. Knoppers B. Population genetics and benefit sharing. Community Genetics 3 (2000) 212-214
13. Laurie, G., & Hunter, K. G. (2004). Benefit sharing and public trust in genetic research. In G. Arnason, S. Nordal, V Arnason (Eds.), Blood and data: Ethical, legal and social aspects of human genetic databases (pp. 323-331). Reykjavik: University of Iceland Press.
14. Marks A., and Steinberg K. The ethics of access to online genetic databases: Private or public. American Journal of Pharmacogenomics 2 3 (2002) 207-212
15. Medical Research Council (MRC). (2001). Human tissue and biological samples for use in research. MRC Guidelines 2001. London: Medical Research Council, 2001.
16. Merz J.F., Magnus D., Cho M., and Caplan A. Protecting subjects' interests in genetics research. Americal Journal of Human Genetics 70 (2002) 965-971
17. Merz J.F., McGee G.E., and Sankar P. "Iceland Inc." On the ethics of commercial population genomics. Social Science & Medicine 58 6 (2004) 1201-1209
18. In: Nelkin D. (Ed). The DNA mystique: The gene as cultural icon (1995), W.H. Freeman and Company, New York
19. People Science and Policy Ltd. (2002). Biobank UK: A question of trust: A consultation exploring and addressing questions of public trust. London. A report prepared for the Medical Research Council and the Wellcome Trust (pp. 1-46).
20. Pullman, D., & Latus, A. (2002). DNA databases: A benefit-sharing model. 6 L'Observatoire de la génétique.
21. Pullman, D., & Latus, A. (2003) Policy implications of commercial human genetic research in Newfoundland and Labrador. A report for the Newfoundland and Labrador Department of Health and Community Services (January).
22. Root Wolpe P. If I am only my genes, what am I? Genetic essentialism and a Jewish response. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 7 3 (1997) 213-230
23. Sayer A. Moral economy (2004), Department of Sociology, Lancaster University, Lancaster, LA1 4YL. http://www.comp.lancs.ac.uk/sociology/papers/sayer-moral-economy.pdf
24. Simm K. Benefit-sharing: An inquiry regarding the meaning and limits of the concept in human genetics research. Genomics, Society and Policy 1 (2005) 29-40
25. Stockdale A. Waiting for the cure: Mapping the social relations of human gene therapy research. Sociol Health & Illness 21 5 (1999) 579-596
26. Thompson E.P. The moral economy of the crowd in the eighteenth Century. Past and Present 50 (1971) 76-136
27. Titmuss R. The gift relationship: From human blood to social policy (1970), Penguin Books, London
28. Wakeford T., and Hale F. Generation Scotland: Towards participatory models of consultation (2004), University of Newcastle, Policy Ethics and Life Sciences Research Institute (PEALS), Newcastle (pp. 1-15)
29. Walzer M. Spheres of justice: A defence of pluralism and equality (1983), Blackwell, Oxford
30. Wilkinson S. Biomedical research and the commercial exploitation of human tissue. Genomics, Society and Policy 1 1 (2005) 27-40
31. Williams G., and Schroeder D. Human genetic banking: Altruism, benefit and consent. New Genetics and Society 23 (2004) 89-103
32. Wilsdon J., and Willis R. See-through science: Why public engagement needs to move upstream (2004), HenDI Systems, London
33. Wilson S.E. Population biobanks and social justice: Commercial or communitarian models? A comparative analysis of benefit-sharing, ownership and access arrangements. TRAMES 8 Special 1 (2004) 80-89